If Hammond had evidence of his 'hacking marching orders' were from the FBI via Sabu, why did he not bring this forward during trial?

Does anyone know if it was brought up during his trial, but excluded for some reason? Not that it matters, because his actions were his own. He could have chosen NOT to perform the tasks relayed to him, knowing they were criminal.

It is suspicious that the Judge wanted the list of countries he was sputtering redacted, but perhaps that is only because the NSA surveillance scandal is already a hot-button topic with nations of the world.

He was sentenced for hacking Stratfor, not for hacking the list of countries that the FBI "ordered" him to.

Unless he has evidence that Sabu asked him to hack Stratfor, what does a list of his other potentially criminal acts have to do with it? Or are we going with "2 wrongs make a right" line of reasoning?

True.

Maybe he was implying Stratfor was one of many targets given to him by Sabu (there was a mention of 2000 or so domains in that non-redacted piece), thus trying to deflect some guilt for his crimes to other parties.

I still find it odd that these 'revelations' are coming to light at the sentencing.

Does anyone know if it was brought up during his trial, but excluded for some reason? Not that it matters, because his actions were his own. He could have chosen NOT to perform the tasks relayed to him, knowing they were criminal.

I agree it doesn't change his culpability, but it is very relevant information about the FBI.

If I'm understanding correctly. Hammond did not know Sabu was working with the FBI. So how can he claim he was given instructions by the FBI?

edit: Like Kilroy420 says, he could've chosen not to do it.

We can choose disobedience or any other behavior but do we as a society or as individuals ever consider the penalties and their relevance to the given charge? Do you? 21 months seems sufficient to rehabilitate or punish this particular behavior.There was an article related to the Petraeus brew ha ha. The charge was about sending inappropriate emails to some woman. The possible outcome was life in prison. Do we have a clue what that means, life in prison? We don't even remotely link the behavior to the punishment.Don't be so eager to hand out these kind of life crushing sentences. I would vote to free a guilty man before allowing our government to abuse its citizens this way.Do you have a clue what a month in jail is?

Honor and loyalty are paramount attributes to the military and their code of ethics. Inappropriate behavior unbecoming an officer (especially of high rank) can result in punishments far exceeding what a domestic court might find trivial by handing down community service.

Comparing the two court systems is dodgy at best.

Back to Hammond:His actions were beyond simple civil disobedience. He stole, damaged private property, and messed up the finances of innocent charities. Clearly the court thought his actions and lack of repentance sufficient to hand down 10 years.

Law enforcement have used criminals to catch other criminals for centuries. In trade for a lighter sentence, criminals are given the option to cooperate to help rid society for more miscreants. Hammond got caught up in the Sabu net, and is crying foul. There may be a grain of truth to his story, but it does not excuse his actions.

If our government is using "criminals" as pawns to do their dirty work, and then tossing them in the slammer, we have huge problems (not surprising unfortunately) and we need to know about it.

Dangerously close to entrapment as well.

Can you imagine what sentence one would be given for hacking the fiber optic lines between a major tech company's data centers and capturing every bit of that data for your own purposes?

I wonder how many American citizens are rotting in federal prisons for the exact acts being routinely committed by our security services every day of the week.

Hammond, however, released a bunch of credit card and other personal information about people not involved in Stratfor. That takes some of the credibility away from his claims of well motivated activism, IMO. He deserves punishment, but it seems to me that he's been sentenced to a longer term than the average armed bank robber. I agree with everyone who has commented about lack of proportionality in sentencing, and I think there should be some way to differentiate between those who commit computer crimes for personal enrichment and those with less evil motives.

Law enforcement have used criminals to catch other criminals for centuries. In trade for a lighter sentence, criminals are given the option to cooperate to help rid society for more miscreants. Hammond got caught up in the Sabu net, and is crying foul. There may be a grain of truth to his story, but it does not excuse his actions.

I don't have a problem with the authorities using criminals to locate and gather evidence on other criminals. But when there is a cache of information obtained from foreign countries containing information they legally can't obtain themselves that's a pretty big line to cross. There were plenty of places they could have asked him to hack that would have shown he was a criminal. Like their own servers, or a honeypot.

What are they doing with the information he obtained. Is it legal?

edit: Additionally, if they are legally allowed to acquire that information for whatever reason, then he was doing work for the government they then used as evidence against him. I can't think of good precedent for that type of behavior.

*We* can break in there and steal this stuff and we *want* to, but we'll have *you* do it because you're better than us and we get a collar as well as the info we want. Shady as hell.

I also don't think the FBI's involvement holds any relevance to his sentencing, so long as they didn't force or enable him to do what he did. From the sound of things, they didn't: they said "Hey, go hack X", and he chose to do so. No tools were supplied, etc.

On the other hand, Hammond's culpability also shouldn't be allowed to excuse the FBI. He may not have known he was effectively working for the FBI, but the FBI knew he was working for them. So they still should be held fully culpable.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

He was sentenced for hacking Stratfor, not for hacking the list of countries that the FBI "ordered" him to.

Unless he has evidence that Sabu asked him to hack Stratfor, what does a list of his other potentially criminal acts have to do with it? Or are we going with "2 wrongs make a right" line of reasoning?

But that is the claim. Read his statement. The target, the hack, and the credit card db all came via Sabu, who was working for the FBI.

We don't have the actual trial evidence to confirm the truth of that. But given all we now know since Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden it's far from unlikely.

The problem with this is he would have had to argue the entrapment defense at trial. Entrapment defenses require a strong level of proof that you would never have done the thing that law enforcement wanted you to do, and that you actively refused the request, but you were coerced or forced into it anyway. He had past history of doing similar things, and being convinced for them. His statements about hactivisim basically preclude his use of that defense. He may have brought it up at sentencing in an attempt to put a spin on the entire episode (I never would have done ALL THIS on my own!), but the determination that he did those acts had already been made.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

I doubt he's lying. But he may be mistaken - I don't believe that Sabu or any FBI agents testified during the trial about whether or not they requested him to do these things.

The reason that it probably wasn't brought up at trial was that (a) it would only be relevant in an Entrapment defense (that is basically unarguable given his past statements), and (b) if admitted at trial could have increased both his charges and his sentence.

We can choose disobedience or any other behavior but do we as a society or as individuals ever consider the penalties and their relevance to the given charge? Do you? 21 months seems sufficient to rehabilitate or punish this particular behavior.

Apparently 21 months wasn't sufficient the first time to rehabilitate him. And we have escalating sentences for repeat offenders, on pretty much every crime. Even going right on down to speeding tickets, points stack up and eventually you lose your license. Then driving becomes a crime. Rack up enough charges of driving without a license, you can get serious time. All for speeding. Because you didn't stop. The speeding ticket alone is not considered "complete" punishment for speeding, such that you get to just pay it and and drive as you'd like. The $200 you pay the state doesn't make it "okay."

Your sentence for a crime isn't a "price" you get to "pay" to do as you'd please, either. If the sentence isn't sufficient to deter you from future transgressions, we issue out longer ones. His third strike will likely carry a life sentence, or near enough, and the same people will be here saying how unfair it is.

He's got ten years to figure this out. I doubt he will, and I doubt Ars posters will either.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

What makes you think it wasn't mentioned at trial?

Because there wasn't a trial, as such. He plead guilty. Afterward, he made a statement to the press about his work for the FBI. And then again today at sentencing. And then again through his lawyer.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

What makes you think it wasn't mentioned at trial?

Because there wasn't a trial, as such. He plead guilty. Afterward, he made a statement to the press about his work for the FBI. And then again today at sentencing. And then again through his lawyer.

Ok, how do you know it wasn't mentioned in 'court proceedings' then, if you're going to be like that.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

What makes you think it wasn't mentioned at trial?

Because there wasn't a trial, as such. He plead guilty. Afterward, he made a statement to the press about his work for the FBI. And then again today at sentencing. And then again through his lawyer.

Ok, how do you know it wasn't mentioned in 'court proceedings' then, if you're going to be like that.

Because there's no testimony given when you do a plea agreement. How about you do some facking research?

Law enforcement have used criminals to catch other criminals for centuries. In trade for a lighter sentence, criminals are given the option to cooperate to help rid society for more miscreants. Hammond got caught up in the Sabu net, and is crying foul. There may be a grain of truth to his story, but it does not excuse his actions.

I don't have a problem with the authorities using criminals to locate and gather evidence on other criminals. But when there is a cache of information obtained from foreign countries containing information they legally can't obtain themselves that's a pretty big line to cross. There were plenty of places they could have asked him to hack that would have shown he was a criminal. Like their own servers, or a honeypot.

Law enforcement have used criminals to catch other criminals for centuries. In trade for a lighter sentence, criminals are given the option to cooperate to help rid society for more miscreants. Hammond got caught up in the Sabu net, and is crying foul. There may be a grain of truth to his story, but it does not excuse his actions.

I don't have a problem with the authorities using criminals to locate and gather evidence on other criminals. But when there is a cache of information obtained from foreign countries containing information they legally can't obtain themselves that's a pretty big line to cross. There were plenty of places they could have asked him to hack that would have shown he was a criminal. Like their own servers, or a honeypot.

So he had the inside track, doing secret work for the government and *still* hacked Stratfor and stole money? Is he some kind of idiot savant - brilliant at one thing but totally stupid at others? Or is this all just a fantasy designed to garner sympathy and reduce the sentence?

So he had the inside track, doing secret work for the government and *still* hacked Stratfor and stole money? Is he some kind of idiot savant - brilliant at one thing but totally stupid at others? Or is this all just a fantasy designed to garner sympathy and reduce the sentence?

Just picking nits, it's my memory that he didn't actually steal the money, at least not for his own benefit. IIRC he published the credit card information he found on Stratfor's site, and encouraged people to use the stolen card info to donate money to charity.

I guess one could argue that that was a well intentioned act. However, I doubt the owners of those cards would agree. And presumably some of those who accessed the cards used them for less altruistic purposes. Lastly, the charities get whacked because all the fraud complaints cause their credit card processing rates to rise.

Guys like Mr. Computer Genius With The Cool Hair And A Higher Purpose are starting to wear thin on my list of people I give a shit about.

I'm not about to speculate about whether or not the FBI suggested to Sabu or the defendant that they should hack the computer systems of foreign governments. After all, I'm not an Ars editor.

But let's say they did. Let's say the FBI actually went outside their charter and hacked foreign government websites. I have to wonder, then, why the FBI, having recruited such a willing and capable computer genius, would want to risk a public trial and a massive airing of their foul deeds in order to get him off the job that, according to Mr. Cool Hair, he was doing so well.

My answer is he's lying. My answer is he knows he's on his way to jail and he has one chance to make an impact in the public eye, so he dreams up some shit that, had it actually happened, might have made a difference at trial had he thought to mention it. Brought up at the last minute at sentencing, any judge with more than a year on the bench will spot it for what it is - a lie made up at the last minute to divert the proceedings.

What makes you think it wasn't mentioned at trial?

Because there wasn't a trial, as such. He plead guilty. Afterward, he made a statement to the press about his work for the FBI. And then again today at sentencing. And then again through his lawyer.

Ok, how do you know it wasn't mentioned in 'court proceedings' then, if you're going to be like that.

Because there's no testimony given when you do a plea agreement. How about you do some facking research?

I could see the FBI doing that easily because lets face it they don't have the best track record when it comes to creating terrorist. Even so it does not excuse 700 grand in fraudulent charges charities or not.

Law enforcement have used criminals to catch other criminals for centuries. In trade for a lighter sentence, criminals are given the option to cooperate to help rid society for more miscreants. Hammond got caught up in the Sabu net, and is crying foul. There may be a grain of truth to his story, but it does not excuse his actions.

I don't have a problem with the authorities using criminals to locate and gather evidence on other criminals. But when there is a cache of information obtained from foreign countries containing information they legally can't obtain themselves that's a pretty big line to cross. There were plenty of places they could have asked him to hack that would have shown he was a criminal. Like their own servers, or a honeypot.

What are they doing with the information he obtained. Is it legal?

edit: Additionally, if they are legally allowed to acquire that information for whatever reason, then he was doing work for the government they then used as evidence against him. I can't think of good precedent for that type of behavior.

*We* can break in there and steal this stuff and we *want* to, but we'll have *you* do it because you're better than us and we get a collar as well as the info we want. Shady as hell.

Every time you read about the cops busting into a house, shooting the family dog, hand cuffing all occupants, trashing the place THEN discovering NOTHING, the information came from a criminal informant.

Every time you read about the cops busting into a house, shooting the family dog, hand cuffing all occupants, trashing the place THEN discovering NOTHING, the information came from a criminal informant.

So yeah, I have a problem with Sabu.

That's is neither true (as police are quite able to fuck up on their own), nor is it significant in this case at all.

But the whole "snitches get stitches" argument you are supporting leads to terrorized neighborhoods in poor areas where everyone is victimized and no one can risk telling the police who committed the crime.

But of course you don't care about actual crime victims, at least not when the criminal is a young, educated white guy with some computer skills.

The world is not black and white. Police misconduct doesn't mean that criminals get a free pass. The existence of bad cops doesn't mean that there aren't even worse criminals, nor it is an excuse for criminal behavior.

If it takes a Sabu to catch sociopaths like this guy (yes, look it up), I'm in favor of that. If it took a Sabu to catch dirty cops, I'd be in favor of that, too.

So he had the inside track, doing secret work for the government and *still* hacked Stratfor and stole money? Is he some kind of idiot savant - brilliant at one thing but totally stupid at others? Or is this all just a fantasy designed to garner sympathy and reduce the sentence?

Just picking nits, it's my memory that he didn't actually steal the money, at least not for his own benefit. IIRC he published the credit card information he found on Stratfor's site, and encouraged people to use the stolen card info to donate money to charity.

I guess one could argue that that was a well intentioned act. However, I doubt the owners of those cards would agree. And presumably some of those who accessed the cards used them for less altruistic purposes. Lastly, the charities get whacked because all the fraud complaints cause their credit card processing rates to rise.

To take money from someone without their consent is stealing, regardless of the use it's put to afterwards.

He stole $700K. That's a serious crime. The number of people excusing that is insane. It doesn't matter what tools he used, it doesn't matter what he did with it after stealing it, the facts is that he took money without consent.

People keep saying that the credit card owners get their money back. Well yay for them, but locating stolen goods doesn't void the crime itself.

Why do people think he had a trial? He plead guilty. That means he went straight to the sentencing hearing. Unless the article is missing something, the reason he didn't use the FBI target list is because he never went to trial.

I'm calling bullshit on Hammond's accusations. He's just trying to discredit the agency that caught him. It doesn't even make sense that the FBI would hack foreign government facilities. To what end? The FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US, and would leave this game up to CIA or NSA.

If Hammond had evidence of his 'hacking marching orders' were from the FBI via Sabu, why did he not bring this forward during trial?

Does anyone know if it was brought up during his trial, but excluded for some reason? Not that it matters, because his actions were his own. He could have chosen NOT to perform the tasks relayed to him, knowing they were criminal.

It is suspicious that the Judge wanted the list of countries he was sputtering redacted, but perhaps that is only because the NSA surveillance scandal is already a hot-button topic with nations of the world.

You've asked exactly the right question.

And then there's this: even if Sabu was cooperating with the FBI, it doesn't mean that every single thing he did was at their direction.

Hammond had already said enough in chat without any FBI directions from anywhere to be convicted. Read the indictment.

I'm calling bullshit on Hammond's accusations. He's just trying to discredit the agency that caught him. It doesn't even make sense that the FBI would hack foreign government facilities. To what end? The FBI has no jurisdiction outside the US, and would leave this game up to CIA or NSA.

Every time you read about the cops busting into a house, shooting the family dog, hand cuffing all occupants, trashing the place THEN discovering NOTHING, the information came from a criminal informant.

So yeah, I have a problem with Sabu.

That's is neither true (as police are quite able to fuck up on their own), nor is it significant in this case at all.

But the whole "snitches get stitches" argument you are supporting leads to terrorized neighborhoods in poor areas where everyone is victimized and no one can risk telling the police who committed the crime.

But of course you don't care about actual crime victims, at least not when the criminal is a young, educated white guy with some computer skills.

The world is not black and white. Police misconduct doesn't mean that criminals get a free pass. The existence of bad cops doesn't mean that there aren't even worse criminals, nor it is an excuse for criminal behavior.

If it takes a Sabu to catch sociopaths like this guy (yes, look it up), I'm in favor of that. If it took a Sabu to catch dirty cops, I'd be in favor of that, too.

The cops do stings to catch criminals. They document every step and do it by the book. They make cases that stick.

I have explained exactly how the CI system works, and it is your right not to believe me. Just hope it isn't you that gets your door busted down and your dog shot.

If Hammond had evidence of his 'hacking marching orders' were from the FBI via Sabu, why did he not bring this forward during trial?

Does anyone know if it was brought up during his trial, but excluded for some reason? Not that it matters, because his actions were his own. He could have chosen NOT to perform the tasks relayed to him, knowing they were criminal.

It is suspicious that the Judge wanted the list of countries he was sputtering redacted, but perhaps that is only because the NSA surveillance scandal is already a hot-button topic with nations of the world.

You've asked exactly the right question.

And then there's this: even if Sabu was cooperating with the FBI, it doesn't mean that every single thing he did was at their direction.

Hammond had already said enough in chat without any FBI directions from anywhere to be convicted. Read the indictment.

If Hammond had evidence of his 'hacking marching orders' were from the FBI via Sabu, why did he not bring this forward during trial?

Does anyone know if it was brought up during his trial, but excluded for some reason? Not that it matters, because his actions were his own. He could have chosen NOT to perform the tasks relayed to him, knowing they were criminal.

It is suspicious that the Judge wanted the list of countries he was sputtering redacted, but perhaps that is only because the NSA surveillance scandal is already a hot-button topic with nations of the world.

I'm not a "supporter" of either side in this case (don't know enough), and I don't know the judge involved, HOWEVER...

Anyone who has been through any kind of court procedure knows that lawyers are paid 100's of USD per hour, and judges often more (I think this is partly done to make people feel that the court's time is terribly important and is not to be wasted). Court procedures are a stilted format of communication in which you have to follow a set agenda, and the side that wins is often the side that is most successful in manipulating the agenda of what is allowed to be discussed.

It may be that, far from being part of some grand conspiracy, this judge merely thought this diversion to be irrelevant to the agreed agenda: a formal discussion of Hammond's own personal wrongdoing and the appropriate punishment for that wrongdoing. The alleged governmental direction of this hacking might have been considered irrelevant to that objective for the simple reason that everyone agrees that Hammond himself did not know that he was effectively being egged on by the government in a sting operation. It might also be suggested that since Hammond was only doing what he had previously done, and to the same kinds of targets; this was not entrapment but was a bona fide sting operation to find out/ gather evidence on what he would do when asked.

So I think there are ways of looking at this that don't necessarily feed any "grand conspiracy" hypothesis.